Discussion: What stand for socialists on events in Crimea and Ukraine?

March 18, 2014 – Links International Journal of Socialist
Renewal -- Two distinct views on the left have emerged to describe
the political upheaval that has shaken Ukraine and Crimea in recent months. On
February 21, the government of President Victor Yanukovych was overthrown and
replaced by a pro-western government in which extreme rightists have a
prominent place.

One view describes
the political intervention of the US and other NATO countries in favour of
regime change as playing a decisive role. So much so that the mass protests
against the Yanukovych government are denied any popular and social legitimacy.
Russia’s role in events is viewed uncritically.

An
opposing view posits that two more-or-less equal imperialist camps are jockeying
for domination and control—the US, Europe, Canada and their NATO military
alliance on one side, and Russia on the other. Both sides are equally
condemned. Curiously, this view is also giving short shrift to examining the
precise goals and achievements of the protest movement of Ukrainians that
rocked the country for months.

The former
view is closer to the reality. The NATO countries pressed very hard for regime
change and they were rewarded in their efforts. They have considerable
influence on the political changes in Ukraine. The country is further under
their domination and their threat to Russia is heightened. For these reasons, their
intervention should be condemned.

That said,
we gain nothing by turning a blind eye to the imperial ambitions of the
governing regime in Russia. And much of the protest movement in Ukraine has
worthy ambitions that should be appreciated and respected. To fully understand
events and elaborate a guide to action in the face of escalating NATO threats, more
detail and nuance is required in our analysis. I hope this commentary may
contribute to that.

A threatening and aggressive NATO alliance

Canadian
Marxist and historian of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, David Mandel, has
published a very informative commentary on the present crisis. He provides a
balanced and factual description of the differing class forces and interests at
play. The full article is at http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/948.php.

Mandel writes
in his concluding section:

The
Russian government no doubt sees what has happened as another step in the
longstanding policy of the US and NATO to contain Russia's influence to her own
borders...

I think we
can state the matter more sharply. Past and present imperialist policy towards
the countries and republics of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union has
been about more than containment. The ultimate goal has been to destroy their
nationalised economies and restore naked capitalist rule.

The
imperialists achieved considerable success in their ambitions. The blind laws
and imperatives that power international capitalism proved much stronger than
the nationalised but bureaucratised economies, which were ultimately overwhelmed.
The big capitalist countries brought much of the former Eastern Europe directly
into their economic and military fold, destroying a large part of the
prevailing welfare state provisions and drastically reduced the living
standards of the working classes. The deformed and bureaucratised economies were
unable, in the end, to resist capitalist penetration because that would have
required a democratisation of planning and government institutions coupled with
massive popular mobilisations to implement the decisions of new, institutional
foundations.*

In Russia
and its bordering republics, capitalism was recreated in a hybrid form where
the state retains a considerable role in economic planning and policy making.
The imperialists were unable to make the transformed country into an exclusive
domain. That eluded their grasp. Russia remained an independent political and
economic entity, and a powerful one to boot.

Russia’s independence,
and that of other rising capitalist powers such as China and Brazil, is of
considerable political consequence for the international working class. The
frictions and conflicts between competing capitalist blocs create political and
economic fissures through which peoples and countries can assert and defend their
independent interests. This is most evident in Latin America, where US hegemony
is in sharp decline. Progressive and revolutionary governments have come to
power. They have been able to avoid the crushing economic isolation and embargos
that made socialist development so difficult in the early Soviet Union and later
in Cuba.

A very
symbolic indicator of a progressively changing world is the political asylum
that Edward Snowden has obtained in Russia. Moscow has rebuffed extraordinary
political pressure from the US and Europe to turn Snowden over for jailing and
a show trial. He continues to issue damning revelations of the violent and
illegal ways in which the imperialists run the world.

Russians
have lots of reasons to be concerned about the threat of imperialist encirclement
and intervention. They lived two terrible experiences in the past century -- first
the military intervention of 1918-21 that sought to overthrow the revolution of
1917 through civil war; and then the cataclysmic invasion and occupation of the
western regions of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine and Crimea, by Nazi
Germany in 1941-44. Those two gruesome attacks were followed by the encirclement
and threats of nuclear attack by NATO countries during the long decades of the
Cold War.

The
threats and menacing encirclement have continued since the fall of the Soviet
Union, including in violation of political agreements where NATO countries
pledged not expand their military alliance eastward.

Crimea

Mandel’s article comments only briefly on the situation in Crimea. The region has become the key flashpoint in the present situation. He calls Russia's intervention "pursuing primarily symbolic goals". I concur with the suggestion here that Russia’s Crimea intervention is a defensive act imposed by the aggressive imperialist intervention in Ukraine. Mandel writes further that Russia's act sends a message to the rightist government in Kiev “not to get carried away”.

Yes, one
can identify all kinds of blundering and rights violations by Russia’s Crimea
intervention. It is not a liberation. Russia is an authoritarian capitalist
state with imperialist ambitions in its own right. All this is important to
explain. But Russia is acting first and foremost in response to aggression from the US/Europe/NATO
alliance and from the new government that has come to power in Ukraine. Another
way to view matters is to ask if Russia would be promoting Crimea secession and
joining the Russian Federation if it was not being threatened by the NATO
countries’ incursions into Ukraine? I think not.

Two equal imperialist camps?

Many
writers (not David Mandel) are equating Russia’s interests and actions with those
of the NATO countries. Some go so far as to compare Russia's intervention in
Crimea, where not a single life has been lost to date, to the “shock and awe” of
imperialism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere that killed tens of thousands
and destroyed entire countries.

We’ll
never get to a thorough discussion and understanding of Russia’s motives in
Crimea if we make simplistic comparisons of the two big-power sides. We need a dynamic
analysis of the evolving geopolitical alliances in the region and the rival national,
capitalist and imperialist interests at play, not phrases and slogans. For
starters, this should easily tell us who are the greater aggressors (US and
NATO) and who are the lesser (Russia) in the present conflict over Ukraine.

Furthermore,
as a recent
article by UK writer and activist Chris Bambury reminds those of us in
Europe and North America, “Here in the West, we should concentrate our fire on [NATO].”

There are
some useful historical analogies to the Ukraine situation, all proportions
guarded, to which we can turn to help us appreciate the importance of
distinguishing degrees of threat by the class enemy.

Three
decades ago, a military regime was in power in Argentina and it made a stupid
and blundering grab to retake the Malvinas (Falklands) Islands from the
colonial power Britain. The generals’ grab was an effort to stem rising domestic
protests against its rule. Britain responded with a naval assault to retake its
colony. Progressives throughout the world responded by condemning and
protesting the British action. They said that whatever the blunders and
intentions of the Argentine dictators, the overriding concern should be opposition
to yet another neo-colonial adventure by one of world’s big imperialist powers.

Just a few
years before that, in 1980, Iraq launched an invasion of Iran. At the time, Iran’s
anti-Shah revolution of 1979 had been blocked and pushed back by the Iranian bourgeoisie
and a reactionary, clerical political leadership. The Iranian masses correctly
perceived that behind the Iraqi move was the hand of imperialism aiming to
restore a version of the dictatorship they had overthrown with so much heroism and
sacrifice the year before. The invasion was a deadly threat to their country’s
independence and to the further advance of a social revolution.

Accordingly,
a large part of the Iranian population rallied to defend their country.

But large
sections of Iranian radicals reacted otherwise. They had fiercely resisted the
clerical regime that was using force and violence to halt any further revolutionary
advance. So they declared a plague on both houses—the Iraqi invaders and the
Iranian governing regime. In so doing, they lost credibility among much of the
population and weakened the fight against the counter-revolution of the Iranian
bourgeoisie and clerical leaders that was in full swing at the time of the
Iraqi invasion. They never recovered from the loss of influence caused by their
disastrous stand.

Today’s
Russia is a rising imperialist country and thus quite different from the Argentina
and Iran of 30 years ago. Its governing regime and capitalist class are a considerable
threat to its own peoples and those of its neighbouring republics. But Russia
is a weaker power compared to its rivals in the West. The workers of Russia or
anywhere else in the world gain nothing from the drive of the larger rivals of capitalist
Russia to weaken it or overthrow its government.

A recent
editorial by the International Socialist Organisation in the US concludes:

During the
Cold War between the ex-USSR and the U.S., Socialist Worker had a slogan that
encapsulated our rejection of both superpower camps. That slogan is relevant
again today: Neither Washington nor Moscow, neither Kiev nor Simferopol, but
international socialism.

Let us
think back to the era cited in this statement. Washington and its allies waged near-genocidal
wars against the people of Korea during the 1950s and the people of Vietnam in
the 1960s and 1970s. They threatened nuclear attack on many countries during
the Cold War years. There is little doubt they would have repeated the use of
nuclear weapons unleashed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the Soviet Union and
then China not developed their own nuclear arsenals.

As to
Soviet Union as a “superpower”, its ruling elite proved considerably weaker and
more vulnerable to overthrow than the imperialist ruling classes. Their
post-World War II crimes do not compare to those of the US and Europe.

The ISO
view of Ukraine today is abstracted from the living situation. That’s a recipe
for wrong conclusions. One imperialist camp has conspired to encourage and
facilitate the overthrow of an elected government and replace it with a more
right-wing government ever more subordinate to NATO-country imperial interests.
Rightists, fascists and billionaires have been appointed to important
ministerial and other posts. They openly advocate aggression against Russia and
against Russian-speaking people living in Ukraine, including regressively
changing Ukraine’s official language policy from a tolerant bilingualism to a
reactionary unilingualism.

(An excellent, two-part interview with Pers Anders Rudling of Sweden describes
the history of right-wing nationalism in Ukraine. It was broadcast on The Real
News Network and can be accessed here: Part
one and Part
two.)

The
politics of “neither nor” third campism has a failed history that we should
avoid replicating today. Its most lamentable expression was at the outset of
World War II, when in 1941 German imperialism launched a horrendous military
offensive against the peoples of the Soviet Union that ended in the deaths of
tens of millions of Soviet workers and peasants and millions of German workers
in uniform. Entire regions, including Ukraine, Crimea and western Russia, were obliterated
by the German invaders and occupiers.

Even if
the Soviet Union had by then evolved entirely away from its socialist origin into
some kind of “state capitalist” system (which I do not believe was the case), it
was incumbent on the working-class movement internationally to oppose the Nazi
aggression, just as Japan’s parallel assaults on China and Southeast Asia had
to be opposed.

A correct approach
to the present conflict in Ukraine is to see that both Ukraine and Russia are under attack by European and North
America (and probably Japanese) imperialism. The international left should
oppose this aggression, including how it threatens the autonomous status of
Crimea (where the legitimacy of Ukraine’s historic claim is less than that of
Russia, including by virtue of the March 16, 2014 referendum vote).

A
progressive government in Russia would offer political and material solidarity
to the people of Crimea as their autonomy comes under attack by the rightist
government in Kiev and its NATO backers. It would pledge support to Crimea’s
autonomy and to Ukraine’s independence. It wouldn’t rush into a referendum on
less than two weeks’ notice nor deny a ballot option to maintain the autonomous
status quo with Ukraine. All of this would better enable it to defend its own
borders and its military installations in Crimea (which Ukraine is bound by
treaty to respect).

The fact that
Russia is hiding its intentions and shrouding them in obfuscation complicates
matters. That should be exposed and criticised. But it shouldn’t cause the
international left to lose all sense of proportion and balance. The NATO
countries are the key aggressors here and should be condemned for escalating
tensions and manipulating and derailing the legitimate protests of Ukrainians (and
Russians) against their pro-capitalist governments and policies.

Such an approach
could help strengthen the working class and pro-democracy forces that propelled
so much of the recent protest movement in Ukraine. It would help weaken the
political right in Ukraine and its allies abroad that have cynically and
hypocritically laid claim to the progressive aims of so many of the protesters.

* * *

Some voices from Crimea

On the
March 17 broadcast of CBC
Radio One’s The Current, a
teacher in Crimea, Yulia Dorogan, explains why she and so many others voted in
the March 16 referendum to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation.
Oleg Smirnov, a professor of communication and journalism at Taurida National
University in Simferopol, tells the program why he considers the referendum to
be illegal. He is cautiously optimistic there will be no civil strife resulting
from the vote.

[* Capitalism
rules by the whip, including the ever-present concern of workers of
unemployment and destitution. Its constant revolutionising of production and
technology is driven by the dog-eat-dog world of competition and profit.
Socialism posits entirely different imperatives for the development of
society--social justice and egalitarianism. But without citizen engagement and
inspiration at its core, socialised economies stagnate and lose the
technological and cultural battle for innovation with the old capitalist order.
Economic compulsion has a role to play in a socialist transition process, but
it cannot be a driving force. Citizen engagement and the realisation of the
creative potential of every human being must be at the heart of the socialist
project.]